 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
PROJECT SUMMARY
In two phases: first, begin by interviewing the broadest possible array of the residents on their creative spaces—from garages to desks to basement workshops. How does the creative work (vocation or hobby) manifest itself spatially—in this way I am searching for equivalences to the artist’s studio. The question would be posed: “if you could imagine an ideal place (studio) to do your work, what would it look like?”
Next, gathering these responses together, a new model studio would be proposed, a Studio Socialis—a collective vision of an ideal place of production from across society. This vision would be articulated as an architectural model, at super large-scale model, equiposing itself between the real and the utopian. The results from the interview phase would be displayed in audio and video form as well as presentations from the participants themselves.
PROJECT EVOLUTION
Studio Socialis is a concept developed in 2008 with the collaboration of John Hawke (USA), and architect Pedro Rogado (Portugal), to use the focusing lens of the studio as a means through which to investigate utopian aspirations surrounding creative production, extending the long discourse of a decentered or socialized art practice but through an approach which recognizes the ongoing public allure of the notion of the artist studio as a place of special freedom. This idea grew from a series of discussions the group had over the summer of 2008 in which different strategies were discussed for trying to map out an “ideal” studio.
In this sense although the situation to be created is an extension of the myriad strategies of the last thirty years that have sought to take the artist and art production out of the studio and into the street, factory, etc., it’s focus is different in that it involves a reprioritization of the physical entity of the studio space. The Studio Socialis brings creative elements external to the field of art into the field of the studio.
In gathering the composite views of the residents with regards to their studio, an array of participants from across the social field varying in profession (historians, scientists, police), age (children, teens, middle aged, elderly), class (wealthy, working class, impoverished), ethnicity (natives, immigrants) etc. will be queried on the nature and practicalities of their creative practice— asking, 1) if you could build your ideal space to work, describe what would it look like; 2) how would it function-- would it be a private or collective space? 3) how would it relate to societal expectations and needs? (i.e. the political); 4) if you could have an art space would it be different from the one you just described? These questions could serve as entry points for extended conversation.
In this way a social portrait could be established in the form of a productive negative space with regards to art practice—that is, to the furthest degree possible, discovering how spatialized spaces of production outside the normally construed art world of curators, critics, or artists, reveals the affinities and distinctions, contradictions and convergences between art practice and broader creative production.
It is unknown what the exact form of the resultant architectural model may take as its design would be contingent on the interviews—it could be assembled as a rational and symmetrical space, with those favoring privacy and individual production in one imagined wing while those in favor of collective modes gathered in one large imagined hall, or it may resemble a rhizomic agglomeration of individual spaces related by differently nuanced visions extending outwards without clear defining principles. Only by undertaking the survey in the first phase can this provisional picture be developed. This is the heart of the question of the project—to concretely make visible this complex set of connected but differential attitudes. This oversized maquette would likely be constructed of one of the varieties of lightweight low cost material usually reserved for architectural models—foam core, cardboard, MDF (again the exact composition would be contingent on how best to articulate the vision of the specific interviewee).
This constructed scale model studio could be proposed within an exhibition space, with the archive that may result from the conversations (video and audio interviews papers, drawings etc.) displayed along with the architectural model. Participants and the broader public would be invited throughout the project to presentation night(s) to discuss their particular vision and concerns.
Studio Socialis then attempts to address a fundamental question of contemporary practice—that of, bridging the assumed space between art and the public, through an attempt to re-imagine the individual artist studio as a locus of a social as opposed to individual imaginary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
last notes-questions-alexandra
1.I would refer myself to people as participants instead of intervenients.
2. Reading about the organization of the roman house -(public and private in the roman house: the spatial order of the casa del fauno by Mark Grahame), made me rthink about the space that you named stage=forum=public space has a parallel on the atrium which is the venue for the formal reception of strangers in the roman house and the space of the "bubbles", what you names Intervenient=private=projections+presence could be the cubicula (used for the reception of intimate associates).
3. Our space should aim to eliminate the network of social positions imposed by the architectural segmentation of space--it should be a flexible unit.
4.To create a "view planning" : architectural features to create a vista that enabled an individual standing at the entrance of the "unit" to see into its heart (a visual axis).
5. The space shall not be organized in a "defensible hierarchy" like the roman house meaning; ranging from semi-public circulation and reception areas, at one end of the spectrum, to private spaces, at the other. Is it possible?.
6. Something I liked (from David Harvey's space as key word); " space is neither absolute, relative or relational in itself, but it can become one or all simultaneously depending on the circumstances. the problem of the proper conceptualization of space is resolved through human practice with respect to it. In other words, there are no philosophical answers to philosophical questions that arise over the nature of space - the answers lie in human practice. The question what is space is therefore replaced by the question how is it that different human practices create and make use of different conceptualizations of space the property relationship, for example, create absolute spaces within which monopoly control can operate. The movement of people, services, and information takes place in a relative space because it takes money, time, energy and the like to overcome the friction of distance. Parcels of land also capture benefits because they contain relationships with other parcels...in the form of rental relational space comes into own as an important aspect of human social practice."
"But Lefebvre, like Benjamin, insists that we do not live as material atoms floating around in a materialist world; we also have imaginations, fears, emotions, psychologies, fantasies and dreams. These spaces of representation are part and parcel of the way we live in the world. We may also seek to represent the way this space is lived through emotions and the imagination. The spaciotemporality of a dream, a fantasy, a hidden longing, a lost memory or even a peculiar thrill as we walk down a street can be given representation through works of art. WHICH LEAD ME TO THINK ABOUT THIS QUESTION ; TO WHAT KIND OF SPACE WILL OUR INTERVIEWS LEAD US TO AND HOW?
7. How to translate language into materiality?
There’s the action (getting into action)--meaning make it operational--use the space-make it active.
8. Wouldn't be interesting to make a statement of construction, like intentions to build and make it operational in relation to the answers of the interviewees?
9. We should pay attention to local aspects of the community because those may lead us to details and particular aspects to include in the maquete or "unit".
10. language--------space
message---------modular message
Space produced within a message within time
11.The answers are in human practice.
12. The problem of symbolism; what kind of symbolic content are we creating, is it going to be a symbol? Of what? (As that can generate distinctive meanings through readings and interpretations)--something to think about during the process?
13. The problem of experience; if there's going to be an "experience" coming out of it, or a world of sensations, the viewers sensations, is that meaning that it is going to be a space of experience?--are the viewers be able to physically enter into the "unit"?
14. The size aspect; somehow out of place because the size might provoke awkwardness but simultaneously in place--situating the problems of a community.
15.SITUATING THE PROBLEMS OF A COMMUNITY--HOW? to put in place, to build, modular?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
